Big Obama is watching you browse the web. Even Bush wasn't this power mad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100220730/prism-scandal-big-obama-is-watching-you-browse-the-web-even-bush-wasnt-this-power-mad/

PRISM scandal: Big Obama is watching you browse the web. Even Bush wasn't this power mad


http://rightcogency.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/nixonobama_faf.jpg
Nixon spied on the Democratic Party and was impeached (Watergate), Obama spies on conservative groups, journalists and normal Americans.


What next? We’ve had the IRS targeting conservative groups, journalists hounded by the state, the NSA collecting phone record data – and now it seems that the US government has been watching what you click on. According to The Guardian and the The Washington Post, the NSA is monitoring internet traffic through Google, Facebook, YouTube, Skype, Yahoo etc. The programme even has a sci-fi sounding name that conjures up images of some 25th century dystopia: PRISM. Would it also surprise you to learn that the FBI, CIA and post office are controlled by a megalomaniac computer with the voice of Betty White? No, me neither.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/06/fb4.jpg
Internet companies deny helping the NSA to spy on customers


There’s some dispute over the details. 1) Were the tech firms complicit in the data recording? The Post and the Guardian initially stated that they were, which all but two of the companies have subsequently denied. Nevertheless, some are pointing out that if they were involved they would be prevented by law from talking about it. 2) Did the US government effectively spy on people without a warrant? If it did, it would arguably be entitled to do so under the Protect America Act passed by Congress in 2007. 3) Director of National Intelligence James R Clapper insists that the press has misrepresented the programmes and that its reporting is effectively undermining anti-terrorism efforts. Although quite how the US government knowing that I’m addicted to watching videos of sneezing pandas on YouTube helps anti-terrorism efforts has yet to be explained.

No one is suggesting that this all began under Obama. Nixon had his dirty tricks, Teddy Kennedy was an enthusiast for wiretapping mobsters, and George W Bush’s administration created most of the apparatus currently being exploited by Obama’s. But we should reserve special anger for Big Barack for the following reasons:

1. He was for surveillance before he was against it. Obama opposed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act during the 2008 primaries when he was trying to look all civil libertarian. Once he had the nomination in the bag, he was suddenly for it.

2. He’s a liberal and liberals aren’t supposed to do this sort of thing. That’s presumably why the New York Times – the New York Times! – has produced such a hurt-sounding op-ed stating that he’s “lost all credibility” on civil liberties.

3. Obama has broadened the scope of the Bush plan. Take phone record surveillance. Bush used it to unearth phone calls overseas with the specific goal of tackling terrorism – and when his misdeeds were exposed he created a new programme with judicial oversight to appease liberals. By contrast, Obama’s administration has been monitoring all Verizon domestic calls with an indiscrimination that is an abuse even of the authoritarian Patriot Act.

Finally, Michelle Malkin raises a very good question. On the one hand, Obama recently declared that the War on Terror was basically over. On the other hand, he has stepped up efforts to carry out domestic surveillance. So, why the contradiction? Malkin concludes that while it’s possible that the NSA has a counter-terrorism motive, its moral cause is undermined by the attacks on political enemies and the crazy scope of the snooping. Big government likes power – and it wants more.

I think it's certainly reached the stage where we can declare that this man is worse than Bush - and if any of you Obama defenders (the ones who like him because he speakssssssssss like thisssssssssss with his teleprompter) disagree, come and defend your man for once.

Not only has he been caught spying on conservative groups via the IRS along with journalists, now it comes to more state interference he's pushing on the same level as Bush did. And this is all without mentioning the wars this man has started (Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Somalia) and continued (Iraq and Afghanistan). Did I also mention that this man has drone bombed way more people than even Bush did? Obama makes Bush seem like a peacemonger.

A great deal of Americans know the truth about this President, but for some reason (cough BBC reporting) people over here and elsewhere abroad still seem to fall for the same guff that they did when he was first elected in 2008 - examine policy and he's exactly the same as Bush if not worse. I'd certainly like to see one of his British fans on here try and defend him on policy (if they know any actual policy that is).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BlYnWmhAsU

Thoughts?

[noddy]

Id like to see his face when he watches me searching for pictures of handsome women eating packets of dried food

[peteyt]

The answer, their all as bad as each other. Whoever comes into power is going to spy on us somehow. I think people like to kid themselves that the people they support wouldn't do this if they came into power.

[xxMATTGxx]

The answer, their all as bad as each other. Whoever comes into power is going to spy on us somehow. I think people like to kid themselves that the people they support wouldn't do this if they came into power.

This and that it also happens in most countries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The answer, their all as bad as each other. Whoever comes into power is going to spy on us somehow. I think people like to kid themselves that the people they support wouldn't do this if they came into power.

Not really, it's very simple - just look at the voting record of a politician rather than the rhetoric that comes out of their mouth. Granted, politicians who mean it are very rare but then now and again they do appear, Ron Paul being a prime example who has voted against all of this for decades.


This and that it also happens in most countries.

'Most countries' do not have a sense of liberty and English-styled liberty that countries such as Britain, America, Canada and the Anglo-sphere do. Simply because Obama is following the route of less free continental/French-style government (and the rest of the world) doesn't mean America ought to follow that path either. American after all was founded on the principle of a small state with a free people.

I love how when it's Obama people don't froth at the mouth like they did with Bush and simply say 'well..' or 'yeah but'. :P

[xxMATTGxx]

Not really, it's very simple - just look at the voting record of a politician rather than the rhetoric that comes out of their mouth. Granted, politicians who mean it are very rare but then now and again they do appear, Ron Paul being a prime example who has voted against all of this for decades.



'Most countries' do not have a sense of liberty and English-styled liberty that countries such as Britain, America, Canada and the Anglo-sphere do. Simply because Obama is following the route of less free continental/French-style government (and the rest of the world) doesn't mean America ought to follow that path either. American after all was founded on the principle of a small state with a free people.

I love how when it's Obama people don't froth at the mouth like they did with Bush and simply say 'well..' or 'yeah but'. :P

When I said most, I also include the UK by the way :P

[GommeInc]

It always seemed a bit obvious in some respects. Obama isn't a saint. It's amazing how bad he is as the President yet he gets away with it due to his charisma.

Apparently the UK might also be involved. It came up on The Guardian app alert a while ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

[-:Undertaker:-]

When I said most, I also include the UK by the way :P

Oh i'm not exempting Britain at all, we're following exactly the same path sadly over the past few decades with more and more state nannying - whether it's wiretapping, council snooping, CCTV everywhere, internet spying or imposing regulations everywhere like the smoking ban.

I oppose all of that regardless of whether it comes from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Cameron, Major, Blair or Wilson. The point is, I just can't work out why there's this strange misty eyed adoration for Obama simply because he slurs his words and makes them sound important when in actual policy he's exactly the same as the man he replaced - who most people who now love Obama absolutely hated at the time. :P

[xxMATTGxx]

Oh i'm not exempting Britain at all, we're following exactly the same path sadly over the past few decades with more and more state nannying - whether it's wiretapping, council snooping, CCTV everywhere, internet spying or imposing regulations everywhere like the smoking ban.

I oppose all of that regardless of whether it comes from Obama, Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Cameron, Major, Blair or Wilson. The point is, I just can't work out why there's this strange misty eyed adoration for Obama simply because he slurs his words and makes them sound important when in actual policy he's exactly the same as the man he replaced - who most people who now love Obama absolutely hated at the time. :P

Oh okay. My mistake then. I commented on it the other day with people surprised this sort of stuff going on when of course it does, it happens everywhere. (Not that I support it but yeah)

[peteyt]

Not really, it's very simple - just look at the voting record of a politician rather than the rhetoric that comes out of their mouth. Granted, politicians who mean it are very rare but then now and again they do appear, Ron Paul being a prime example who has voted against all of this for decades.

The problem is how do you really know someone like Ron Paul isn't just a good speaker too? It's okay for him to support privacy, but if he did gain power what's to stop him from going against his word. The problem is its very different being a political candidate and being the actual president, it's something I could never do because you have to make difficult decisions.

Take privacy for example. A lot of the people who complain about privacy and the lack of it are the same people who complain about how government's weren't able to discover terrorists plans. How do you monitor suspicious behaviour without invading privacy? It's a difficult question and in my opinion could lead to someone like Ron Paul doing the opposite of what he said.

Oh and wasn't Obama against some legislation because it didn't protect the public - something like SOPA if I'm correct.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is how do you really know someone like Ron Paul isn't just a good speaker too? It's okay for him to support privacy, but if he did gain power what's to stop him from going against his word. The problem is its very different being a political candidate and being the actual president, it's something I could never do because you have to make difficult decisions.

Look at his record.

Granted if you're voting for somebody who has never been in Congress/The Senate before then you are taking a risk - but someone like Ron Paul has a voting record that is decades long that can be checked up on the internet, and it's air tight really.

I just don't understand why people would select someone like Obama over somebody with a record like that.


Take privacy for example. A lot of the people who complain about privacy and the lack of it are the same people who complain about how government's weren't able to discover terrorists plans. How do you monitor suspicious behaviour without invading privacy? It's a difficult question and in my opinion could lead to someone like Ron Paul doing the opposite of what he said.

I wouldn't say it's the same people, but you do have a point that after events like terrorist attacks there are parts of the population who call for crazy measures to be introduced - and the problem is that we have people in office (Obama, Cameron etc) who seek to expand state control... which is what a terrorist attack gives them the excuse to do.

It's like on Farenheit 9/11 (not sure if you've ever seen) but one Congressman basically says the US Government had basically been waiting for the right moment (a tragic event) to implement certain state controls, and when 9/11 happened they thought 'heres our chance'. That's why I think it's always important to have somebody with a good record in power who actually doesn't want more executive power, somebody who wants less (Ron Paul to cite one example - he even said he didn't really want to be President).

[Shockwave.2CC]

Ow no, I have to be careful what I go on now :p

http://www.channel4.com/news/internet-data-google-facebook-apple-access-nsa

[peteyt]

I wouldn't say it's the same people, but you do have a point that after events like terrorist attacks there are parts of the population who call for crazy measures to be introduced - and the problem is that we have people in office (Obama, Cameron etc) who seek to expand state control... which is what a terrorist attack gives them the excuse to do.

It's like on Farenheit 9/11 (not sure if you've ever seen) but one Congressman basically says the US Government had basically been waiting for the right moment (a tragic event) to implement certain state controls, and when 9/11 happened they thought 'heres our chance'. That's why I think it's always important to have somebody with a good record in power who actually doesn't want more executive power, somebody who wants less (Ron Paul to cite one example - he even said he didn't really want to be President).

The problem is its easy to promise something when your on the outside but when you get the power its completely different. Remember the promise to get rid of University fees and then suddenly their actually raised. I can just imagine someone being for privacy then getting into power and realising they had to tackle terrorism and so going against their promise. Also at the end of the day the president is just really a spokesperson and he has to listen to those around him, some who could force pressure to get what they wanted especially if it was agreed by the majority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is its easy to promise something when your on the outside but when you get the power its completely different. Remember the promise to get rid of University fees and then suddenly their actually raised. I can just imagine someone being for privacy then getting into power and realising they had to tackle terrorism and so going against their promise. Also at the end of the day the president is just really a spokesperson and he has to listen to those around him, some who could force pressure to get what they wanted especially if it was agreed by the majority.

But that premise assumes all within or who enter government must be bad - and I don't think it's entirely true. I mean, with Obama a lot of people think he's suddenly changed and joined the establishment after gaining office when the truth is he was always part of the establishment but was just painted as somebody so radically different when infact, he wasn't.

I mean you have a point, I suppose sometimes when people join government they can be corrupted or were just complete liars (the Libera Democrats... but only somebody with rose tinted glasses didn't see that coming) - absolutely. But then throughout history you have different examples where people have achieved office/influenced office away from the path it is following with examples including the English Baron's Revolt against the King, the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers who sought and achieved a completely different system to the then-British one they were previously under, US President Calvin Coolidge in rolling back the power of the state state, Thatcher battling (and winning) against the post-war consensus and the Referendum Party of Sir James Goldsmith (along with the Business for Sterling group in the early 2000s) who helped change the course of history indirectly and steered Britain away from joining the Euro. So many more examples but I won't write a story. :P

Just some examples really of why I don't think everybody deserves scourn poured on them for the sake of it. I mean, i'm pretty.. well very harsh on politicians and Ron Paul is one of the few I like because he actually has a voting record that matches what he preaches. The same goes for Tony Benn (former Labour MP) who I barely agree with, but who at least has always stood solid rather than sacrifice principles for office.

[Daltron]

Obama if you are reading this

hey

[Chippiewill]

It's a bit of a mistake to place all of the blame on the executive. Obama may be a hypocrite but Congress is responsible also.

[MKR&*42]

Not dreadfully shocked lmao, least the media is finally bringing it out to the public.

[Mikey]

This is madness, people should be told what data is being collected and how protected the data is. Also hey obama. love you.

[dbgtz]

Rand Paul is supposedly suing over this.

[peteyt]

But that premise assumes all within or who enter government must be bad - and I don't think it's entirely true. I mean, with Obama a lot of people think he's suddenly changed and joined the establishment after gaining office when the truth is he was always part of the establishment but was just painted as somebody so radically different when infact, he wasn't.

I mean you have a point, I suppose sometimes when people join government they can be corrupted or were just complete liars (the Libera Democrats... but only somebody with rose tinted glasses didn't see that coming) - absolutely. But then throughout history you have different examples where people have achieved office/influenced office away from the path it is following with examples including the English Baron's Revolt against the King, the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers who sought and achieved a completely different system to the then-British one they were previously under, US President Calvin Coolidge in rolling back the power of the state state, Thatcher battling (and winning) against the post-war consensus and the Referendum Party of Sir James Goldsmith (along with the Business for Sterling group in the early 2000s) who helped change the course of history indirectly and steered Britain away from joining the Euro. So many more examples but I won't write a story. :P

Just some examples really of why I don't think everybody deserves scourn poured on them for the sake of it. I mean, i'm pretty.. well very harsh on politicians and Ron Paul is one of the few I like because he actually has a voting record that matches what he preaches. The same goes for Tony Benn (former Labour MP) who I barely agree with, but who at least has always stood solid rather than sacrifice principles for office.

I think with me I'm just too much of a pessimist when it comes to the government. I never know which one to trust, and so rarely sadly vote. Interestingly I saw something on question time which stated a lot of people were moving support to UKIP not because of their policies but because they felt that the parties they had originally supported had let them down - a lot didn't even know their actual policies.